Anybody who says that their choice of a news source is unbiased is kidding themselves. Consider this identical story from the Baptist Press and the Associated Baptist Press. I'll bet you can pretty much guarantee which source wrote which story based on the headline alone.
Southern Seminary closing School of Church Music
Southern Seminary combines two schools, creates Church Ministries School
Feel free to make your own commentary from here. I'll just say that discernment is a gift from God.
After reading this story recently about President Obama lifting the ban on using federal funds to conduct embryonic stem cell research I was left with a question; Why is what we have not enough? Despite the first paragraph of the article I linked earlier, there is no law against embryonic stem cell research in this country, there never has been. There is only a ban on using federal funds for that purpose. There are dozens of private foundations that fund this type of research, and the state of California passed a resolution funding it specifically. There is also plenty of federally funded research done on non-embryonic stem cells. (which I fully support) All of this is not to mention the research of this type that is being done all over the world. So why are so many people so insistent on using tax dollars to fund something so controversial? Or why is the fact that the government won't pay for it "an embarrassment for American science"?
Here is a similar issue - I understand that the pro-choice faction wants abortion legal. But even they all say that abortion is bad, so why insist on federal money being used to provide them? I believe it is because there are a lot of people who profit from abortions, and more money for abortions means more money for them.
I am obviously opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research and I would fully support bans on both because I believe they are murder, but even if you disagree, can you not see that it is bad policy for the government to be in the practice of paying for these controversial procedures?
There is my question to the supporters - Why is the fact that is legal and ongoing not good enough? Why must I be forced with my tax dollars to pay for something I am morally opposed to?
The question is on the table - but a word of caution. I will be moderating the comments. Please guard your tone keep it polite and free of incendiary rhetoric. No name calling or insulting the intelligence of those who believe either way.
This story about high school dropout rates appeared in my local paper last week and it reminded me of something a friend said to me a while back. This post is going to explore my thoughts on his theory. His theory is that we should allow students to drop out of high school if they are not interested in being there because those students who do not want to be there are a tremendous drain on the entire system. After considering it, I think I'm on board with his way of thinking.
It seems to me that there are two types of students who are uninterested in school. First, there are the students for whom the concept of book-learning is just unbearably boring. They may be hard-working, with a love of working on the farm or maybe they love doing auto body work. They problem is not their work ethic or even intelligence, but the entire atmosphere of school.
Secondly, are those students who have no ambition or motivation in life to be anything. All they want to do is play video games or smoke weed. Why should they be forced to sit in classes? They obviously don't want to be there. A bigger consideration, however, is that they make it impossible for other students to learn and for teachers to teach because they are a tremendous distraction.
Politicians are always touting tech educations and trade schools, but those are not necessarily the answer. Lazy or unmotivated in a classroom is lazy or unmotivated in a metal shop. And motivated will be successful. If a kid knows that he loves doing construction at age 16, and he's good with a hammer and nail but hates English, why make him stay in school? Or if he or she is a great mechanic, or a great child-care provider, provided they can read and communicate on some level, there should be no reason they have to stay in school.
So, you ask, what becomes of those dropouts who are lazy, unmotivated, or have no ambition in life? The same thing that happens to them now it will just occur a couple of years earlier. They get by by sponging off of others. They continue to live with their parents, or whoever will take them in. Most likely they will wake up one day and say it's time to grow up. If they are motivated they will get a job and be successful.
How could this work? I think it would work pretty simply if we just dropped truancy laws. What would happen if a student only appeared in class 100 of the 180 school days? He or she would fail. What would happen If you only showed up 60% of the time for your job?
Obviously we must have a literate society. We cannot let students drop out before they learn to read, but have a look at text scores. Many students never learn to read beyond a 6th grade level anyway. Maybe this plan would necessitate some sort of free GED system for when these people finally wake up but they are too old to go back to school. Even that would be cheaper than working to force them to go to school and keeping other students from learning.
As always, I look forward to being ripped apart in the comments
I read this story Sunday about the State of Oregon developing a plan to tax the mileage that drivers drive rather than taxing gas. Why? Because cars are becoming more fuel efficient, and the state still needs the dollars. The rate they are discussing e would equate to $1 per 400 miles, (a buck a tank for me) not an onerous amount. However, a lot of things about this concept bother me, I have a blog, so I thought I'd express my opinion. It feels like punishment for living in the country - Most of my life, I've lived in rural areas. Driving 20 minutes to church has been the norm for me. When I say driving 20 minutes to church I don't mean 6 miles away but I catch 25 lights, I mean 15-20 miles away. So this idea of taxing mileage feels like a tax predominantly against rural places. A gas tax is much more evenhanded, because cars burn gas while idling. Many of the most rural places are also the poorest places in this country. Folks in the Appalachians can least afford this tax which will hit them the hardest.
You can't tax my school bus - Are government vehicles and state officials going to be exempt from this tax? Currently, a police car and a school bus is subject to gasoline taxes, at least at the federal level. For some reason though, I don't forsee my senator's car or the garbage truck being fitted with one of these GPS systems.
I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, however - Something about putting a government-owned lo-jack system in my car gives me the willies. It feels very big brothery. I assume that I only have the illusion of privacy now. If the government really wanted to find me, they could, I'm sure, but it just makes me uncomfortable putting a device in my car for the explicit purpose of tracking my whereabouts. Besides, It's none of the state's business where I go. (I probably just set a record for made-up words in this paragraph)
Smoking is bad for you, but please don't everybody quit - The hypocrisy of every politician screaming "green, green" and being addicted to the money the gas tax generates is similar to taxing cigarettes through the roof in order to "get kids to stop smoking" and using the tax money to fund education. If all the kids stopped smoking, there would be a major revenue source for schools missing. This is the same thing. Politicians universally say, we need more fuel efficient cars, and alternative fuel sources, but won't know how to survive without the taxes.
I understand that the state has the responsibility of upkeep on roads. And I believe that we do need to develop alternative fuel sources and more fuel efficient cars, but I am uncomfortable with this system of generating the income. I know that New Yorkers pay almost nothting in gas tax now because they walk where they go, but this system seems inherently unfair.
I have no answers, just wanted to weigh in with my opinion. As always, feel free to chime in in the comments and tell me why I'm stupid or uninformed.
2009 is nearly upon us. I thought it would be fun to make some predictions about the coming year.
Try your hand at predictions in the comments
I think in the eyes of many Americans, tomorrow's second biggest vote is on California's proposition 8. Prop 8 is a law to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Regardless of which way the vote goes tomorrow, there is no doubt that California will have some sort of legal union for same-sex couples. Civil unions amount to essentially the same thing as a marriage in the eyes of the state. But there is one huge difference; it is not called marriage. My question tonight is about this title. What I'm asking is this, if the civil union legally gives all the same rights and protections to couples as a marriage, then why fight over the word? I'll throw it to my readers, do you think the title "marriage" is important? I do think it is important. And obviously the opponents who have donated millions to see prop 8 fail think it's important. Feel free to vote and to let me know in the comments why you hold your opinion. [polldaddy poll=1073365]
I considered writing an entire post about how I think the state should not be in the marriage business. Marriage is a church function and should be handled by churches. That would be futile, however, since the state is inextricably linked to marriage and is involved in nearly every aspect of it. There is no question that the state has to have a clear definition of what it is and is not and therefore must be involved.
And it will be over. Commercials will be on TV that are about products, not just candidates. The news will have something new to talk about. And we will have a new president-elect. I am personally of the opinion that, however the election goes, we get what we deserve. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic about politics (I am after all truly thankful to live in a democracy) but I do not see anything substantial changing, regardless of who is elected. Our country is set up in such a way that no one really has all that much power. In truth, who you vote for for governor makes much more difference than who you vote for president.
That is not to say your vote doesn't matter. As Christians we absolutely have a duty to vote, and to vote according to the Bible. To do anything else would be irresponsible, poor stewardship, and make us bad citizens.
Please vote. Pray, read your Bible, and vote.
Here's a list of all my political polls from this blog's history
[polldaddy poll=1052412][polldaddy poll=929433][polldaddy poll=946871]
Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say "Ni" at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
- Roger the Shrubber
Sorry...I got a bit distracted by my title.
If, like me, you saw your recent retirement statement and were a bit saddened, I have a suggestion for you.
I saw a link to this site today (I can't remember where) and signed up immediately. The idea is this. You set up a savings account with SmartyPig for any reason, (vacation to house down payment) with a goal in mind, and SmartyPig tracks your progress toward your goal, gives you a scheduled monthly contribution to reach your goal, and reminds you of your reason. Other people can contribute as well.
I believe most of us are very loose with our money. We aren't so much irresponsible as we are just not careful. This is just a simple savings account, earning a little interest, but it is the regular reminder that makes this method work. I'm diong it, and should join with me.
As I begin writing this post, this article has approximately 1000 diggs. Without question there is a new atheism rising. Not rising in popularity mind you, but rising in boldness. Books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have recently been given wide publication. Also soon the Bill Maher movie, Religulous, comes out. I blogged about it here, and another good blog about it is found here.) People do not seem to be becoming atheists but the atheists are becoming more bold.
This article, "why do people believe in God?" is written by an atheist.
The thesis of the article is found in the following quote. "No religion accepts us as the person we know ourselves to be. Rather, we are told that we are inadequate, unsatisfactory and helpless" (Emphasis mine) There is a fundamental problem with this statement that plagues most of the atheists.
Before addressing the problem with the previous statement I need to say this; atheism always seems to have one of 2 causes at the core. First, the vast majority of atheists do not know how to deal with the presence of evil. In other words, they cannot reconcile the existence of suffering in the world with the existence of a loving God. (If anyone actually wants to read it, I can write a couple of posts addressing this problem.) Secondly, the desire to be in control of one's own life. In other words the childish attitude that,"nobody can tell me what to do" extends even as far as to an all-powerful God. And I again remind you of the words of Ivan from The Brothers Karamazov, if there is no god there is no morality. (Somebody in Sunday School taught me this second one a while back and I've noticed it as a trend ever since.)
This article represents both of these viewpoints. But the author gives herself away at the end with the quote. "The person that we know ourselves to be." She does not want to be told that what she desires or does is wrong, or even that it may be. I wonder if she believes that Jeffrey Dahmer should feel free to "be the person he knew himself to be" That person just wanted to eat people. She obviously does not say, but I assume that she believes that there should be some morality.
Here is the real problem I suppose that it never has struck her that the reason that virtually everyone on the planet believes in a god is that the "person we know ourselves to be" is flawed.
It's not just that we are told we are flawed. We are, in reality, flawed. We know that we do wrong if left to ourselves, and without someone offering guidance, we will continue to do wrong. Religion is not the reason that we need police in the world, and religion is not the reason that there are wars and depression. Nobody has to teach a baby to do wrong or to lie about doing wrong.
In fact, with just a small bit of looking at the world, we find that the Bible is correct. We find that God's law is written on our hearts. (Jer 31:33 Psalm 40:8 Heb 8:10) We find that God has made himself obvious to everyone, not just through creation (Psalm 19 Rom 1:19-20) but through our conscience as well.
Sorry Ms. Rowe, "the person we know ourselves to be" is not good enough, no matter how well we are accepted by others. And if you look at the previous sentence and determine that I am the problem with the world, I'll just have to accept that criticism.
This post on politics will probably not be what you expect. That post is coming either tomorrow or Thursday. But since this is my first ever post about politics, please go to the * and read my disclaimer. This is an election year. For me it's a year to vote for governor and US Senator as well as another office you may have heard of, President of the United States. One of the interesting phenomenons that is a part of the election process is the coverage in the media.
I am not writing this post to simply complain about the coverage, although I am not happy. I already know the situation. In college I was a political science major. Part of studying poly sci in this age (even though I was in college last century) is studying politics in the mass media. Although there is a new form of mass media since I was in college, these lessons are still useful.
The first lesson about politics in mass media is about the practice of negative campaigning. (The Willie Horton ad is the most famous attack ad of all time.) The short summary of negative campaigning is this – it works – very well. And refuting the messages in attack ads does not work – at all. So how do you combat negative ads? With negative ads, of course. People all say that they hate them, but they work, so they are not going anywhere. Get used to them. BTW, now you can recognize an attack ad before it begins because the "I'm ___ ____, and I approved this message" is at the beginning rather than at the end as a way of separating the candidate's name from the negative ad.
Here’s the second thing to learn about politics in mass media, the news only covers the election as a horse race. For example, if one candidate comes out with a huge policy statement, lets say he is rolling out his policy on terrorism. Here’s is the coverage you will get on the news on every level. A brief summary of the plan, nothing that would ever take longer than 15 seconds, maybe some bullet points, and quite a lot of discussion of how the plan will affect the candidates standings in the polls. The closer the election gets, the less talk of anything substantive. The coverage becomes only stories of new polls and how a particular candidates latest move will affect their standings. After a debate, the number 1 question will always be; "who won?" Nobody covers what they actually said, unless it was incredibly stupid. Watch and see as we get closer to November.
The world we now live in is slightly different than when I was in college. Now we have the internet. (We had the internet when I was in college, but it was video free and blog free. It was a very different web.) A quick perusal of digg on any day, (Go there now, I’d bet there are at least 3 of the top 10 stories on politics (and probably negative about McCain/Palin)) or the top technorati tags or wordpress tags will show you what is popular. And politics is very popular. The problem with the internet is that so much of what we see and is popular is what is called an echo chamber. It’s people blogging about something somebody else already blogged. Then, rumors and half-truths become so popular that nobody can tell them from the truth. I still know people who believe the Obama is a Muslim who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance, and Palin’s youngest child is actually her grandchild. Nobody believes it because of any proof or reason, but because they heard it so often. That is the major problem with the internet as a news source, so much of it is just a giant echo chamber. Over half my posts are just linking to videos or other stuff. And my blog is an actual blog with original content a couple of times a week. Of the thousands & thousands of typepad, wordpress and blogger blogs, I would love to see what percentage contain original content as opposed to reposts of links of stuff from around the web. (BTW – That is why there will always be a need for professional journalists, Their form may just change from newspapers to the web.)
Finally I believe there is a greater influence of celebrity now than there has been in the past. Celebrities have always been involved with politics, but it seems like now there is either much more news about them, or somehow they get much more attention. In just the last week, Matt Damon, Pamela Anderson, and Lindsay Lohan have all publicly bashed Sarah Palin. Every time it makes headlines, and people seem to care.
[polldaddy poll="929433"]
* Although I am a staff member of LaGrange Park Baptist Church, the views and opinions expressed in this blog are my own and not that of the church. They may not be construed as an endorsement or attack on any candidate or party on behalf of the church. They are my views as an individual.
I have lived my whole life in Kentucky. I don't know how many of my readers are aware of this geographical tidbit, but we don't get many hurricanes in Kentucky. The closest beach is about 9 hours away from where I grew up. I have now lived in NC for 5.5 years and I've experienced a few hurricanes. None have been very bad this far inland. (I live in Fayetteville the beach is an hour away) The worst was the first. Isabel in 2003 was definitely a learning experience for me. I remember thinking it wouldn't be a big deal, and since you know its coming, not that bad. Then all my friends in seminary told me how bad they are, and I began to be concerned. At the time I lived in a trailer, so I loaded up Esau and spent the hurricane day at a friend's house. I had never seen anything like the steady 40 mph wind, and it rained quite a bit, but the power stayed on all day. I went home about 6 pm after I thought the worst was over. There was no power at my house, but it was on by the time I got up the next morning.
Well, now I have a blog and I have readers all over the country. (Ok, really they are mostly in NC and KY.) So I thought I'd give play-by-play of the experience of Tropical Storm Hanna. The storm is only 65 mph now and not going to become a hurricane, but 65 mph is enough. The real problem with this experiment is that the worst part of the storm will be during the dark. But I'll take pictures of the sky, and fill you in on the events periodically.
11:00 am Friday, September 5
I had an appointment at 9:00 then decided to run some errands. This is the bottled water isle at wal-mart. Clearly people are concerned about having no power (loads of people around here are on wells.) Winds are calm, but it looks like rain.
1:30 pm - Wind is still calm. It's raining a little bit now.
2:00 pm -The sun is shining, still no wind.
2:49 pm - Raining again
5:50 pm - Winds are up to 70 mph. So it might become a hurricane after all. Here it's still pretty calm. it's raining. But no real wind to speak of.
At any rate, I gathered up my flashlights, batteries and candles just in case my power goes out for a while. The headband light works for a long time on just a couple of batteries. I can read all night if necessary. I'll cook the meat I bought today for supper, so it doesn't spoil. And everything that can blow away is fairly sheltered. The can trailer at church was emptied yesterday so it's good that I won't wake up with aluminum cans all over my yard.
7:54 pm - I just ran an errand about a mile from the house. It's raining pretty good, but still no wind to speak of. There is a lot of traffic for any rainy night, but especially one with a hurricane coming. Lots of cars at the gas station. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the bread & milk at the grocery store. Wind is getting closer though.
11:04 pm - This is so far the boringest tropical storm ever, but it's still a way off. The rain has really started now, and it's gonna rain heavy off and on all night. There probably won't be another post until morning. When I get up we should be having sustained 35-40 mph winds, and it looks like it will be a hurricane before long. I'll take a vid with my camera for you tomorrow. Good night all.
5:40 am Saturday, September 6 - Wow, its raining. Raining hard enough to wake me up. it's very windy but I still have power. According to the TV, the eye is a county away. This looks like the last really hard band of rain. I'm going back to bed.
7:19 am - The eye is north of us now, and the wind has pretty obviously changed direction. (I get wet in places where I could stay dry before.) I shot a short movie on the camera, but it's boring. Imagine trees blowing in a 30 mph wind, and a lot of rain. I still obviously have power.
9:06 am - It has rained A LOT, but it looks like it will be over in about an hour. It moved a bit faster than they predicted, but looks like I'm clear. If you read along, thanks. One more update coming, pics of the damage at my house
11:27 am - This is my last post on Tropical Storm Hanna, detailing the wind damage at my house. I seem to still have no shingles missing from the roof. But I do have this huge limb and terrible flooding in the front yard. :) The sun is shining now, it's pretty breezy but the storm is officially over. Here's the pic of the destruction wreaked by the terrible storm. Thanks for reading.
More sad news. Jerry Reed died today also. Enjoy East Bound & Down, from the classic, Smokey & the Bandit [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mehbMnHWac]
BTW: there should be a real post here tomorrow. But I had to share this great song
Sorry about that - I have to be the 300th person to make that joke on a blog today. Don LaFontaine died today. Who is Don LaFontaine?
LaFontaine's vocal talents have appeared in over 5,000 movie trailers and nearly 350,000 commercials. He is most famous for the introductory line, "In a world..."
This might clarify it further:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMR3SWOB5dA]
Enjoy this also:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QPMvj_xejg]
One more, just because its interesting:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxP33iQ6KM]
This movie, Religulous comes out soon. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCzpPKSJL70]
I used to be a huge fan of Bill Maher. In fact once upon a time his show, Politically Incorrect, was my favorite on late night TV. Although I don't get HBO, so I don't think I've ever seen his new show. I will almost surely watch this documentary. However, I know that his purpose is to make religion look dumb, and if Michael Moore has taught the world anything it's that you can make a documentary say anything.
My guess is that Bill Maher will ask the following question; why if there is a God is he telling everybody different stuff? Here's what I know. he will not talk to any brilliant Christian apologists. There will be no William Lane Craig, no J.P. Moreland, only some hicks and rednecks. This will only be an attack on religion.
So before anyone I know sees it, including me, here's a brief refutation of one point. I got the following quote from this article (I couldn't find any official information on the movie other than the trailer from the movie's website):
Maher’s point- that the world would be a better place without any religions, that wars would be eliminated and there would be universal understanding,
Let's examine this quote realistically and look at 3 atheists. None of these guys liked religion all declared that religion was a major problem for the world. In fact they each killed thousands of religious leaders.
To be fair, the crusades probably killed 1.5 million, several hundred thousand were killed in the inquisition and witch trials, and millions in the post-reformation "religious wars" that were really political wars. But from the first list, does this seem like a peace-loving group of people? It's fine if you want to hate religion but don't assume we are all stupid. There are wars and bad junk in the world because people are bad, not because religion teaches us to think that we are right.
This is so awesome it just couldn't wait til Friday. It's the neatest thing I've seen in a long time. What if the Empire invaded San Fransisco? [vodpod id=ExternalVideo.666380&w=425&h=350&fv=]
I just read (and by "just read" I mean over the weekend when I wrote this post) this story: Sex education 'should begin at four
and I am wondering, how can anybody honestly look at the world and think, "What our kids need is more exposure to sex." I'm kinda sad to think it's even a debate.
Here is a Digg comment, that probably illustrates the point of what some are thinking
i have always thought that it's a tad ridiculous that we treat sex as some sort of secret thing. biologically it's our only reason for being and shouldn't be treated as something crass or dirty. if the topic of sex is treated casually then the allure and mystery will be gone by the time kids are of sexual maturity and probably won't make a rash decision out of either the desire to discover their own sexuality, or out of being misinformed.
I'm only going to address the second sentence of this comment "biologically its our only reason for being." This is a worldview problem, and it is incredibly sad. I can hardly fathom what life would be like if in fact all we were was biological. Neither can anyone else. People have souls and we cannot see the world as merely a physical place. By the way, if it was, then there would be no morality attached to sex or anything else. In fact there would be no morality whatsoever. We might as well teach 4-year-olds about sex. Or even two, isn't that what they do in Brave New World?
But that's not how the world works. We were created as both physical and spiritual beings, and God made sex for a purpose. And in any context proper or improper, it will always be a big deal.
Sex will always be a big deal, and anyone who tells you different is selling something.
Yesterday I saw this story in at least 5 places around the web.
Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher
Then I heard it again on the news and again on the Kimmel show.
[Edit] Then I heard it yet again on the Tony Kornheiser show on Thursday [/edit]
Here's a quote from the important passage of the story
"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday. Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.
In case you just skimmed over that paragraph, allow me to summarize:
Moses on Mt. Sinai cannot be true, because I don't believe in a God who can do anything so I decided to just make something up completely out of whole cloth. I have taken drugs that gave me a similar experience, so that must be what caused it.
I'm not shocked that someone would make up something like this. People have doubted the miracles of the Bible since they happened. What I want to know is - Why is this news? A guy made something up. If I publish an article that says "I don't believe the moon exists so it must be a very large, very stale twinkie fooling us all." two things would happen.
1. Nobody at all would pay any attention, because clearly I have an overactive imagination. (Or I've been burning the bush) 2. The people who know me would tell me to shut up.
My second question is this; does the Time and Mind Journal of Philosophy have any standards whatsoever? How can a guy make something up just because he is unwilling to believe what has been believed by most for the last 6000 years, and get it published? Does anyone have an answer?